Out of the Fire and back into the Frying Pan.

It’s a dead horse, and it’s been beaten leathery by now; immigration in the United States would be a very simple issue if the US citizen didn’t pay an income tax or an excise tax. At that point just about no citizen could line up in front of buses carrying illegal immigrants of nearly all ages taking them to parts unknown within the country for them to “vanish” into American society.  But there is an income tax and years of the same kind of “taxes are just and fair” logic that led to other things like the minimum wage has resulted in a political structure, government a nation that simply cannot handle an unregulated border.

The solutions are really simple then, deregulate the American economy wisely and regulate our borders with similar wisdom.  Not everything in the American economy should be without government oversight, mundane things like making sure contractual obligations when breeched have a channel of recourse is quite needed. But ensuring that businesses don’t sell too much to too many people is not something that should be regulated.

These people who sneaked past the American border seeking a world better than the one their parents birthed them into get no sympathy from me. I know enough people born into similar conditions who played by the rules or their parents played by the rules and they made their way to America and are now welcomed friends and fellow Americans. I know how difficult it is to come from a third world country and get into America, but breaking the laws of a nation of laws to get away from your home nation which suffers from the same lawlessness you’ve employed to enter America… I’m sorry that gets no sympathy from me.

For a moment I’ll note about those illegal immigrants that they or their parents are insane and irresponsible to an incredibly nth degree to allow their children to make the trek through as many countries as they did. It also speaks volumes of the countries these people are coming from and the real effort should be to deal with the situation here by placing those kids back in Mexico and inform them that they can either contact their parents to be picked up or trek back to whatever countries they want to but, should they cross the US border again they will face hard time or worse and when released will be put right back at the border and this time told if they should cross the border lethal force will be employed first.

Now dealing with solutions for their homelands, it isn’t an American responsibility to help fix other countries especially if they don’t believe they need fixing. But an understanding must be made clear that no one knows for certain if the people who cross the border illegally are agents of organizations that want to hurt American citizens and so lethal force will be employed but the bodies when possible will be brought back to the home countries.

As for the solution’s part three “America” it’s complicated, first we need to satisfy the security of individuals who come to the US and then we have to deal with taxation. As I mentioned above if the busses those illegals were on, the rooms they slept in and the roads that they were driving on were not made possible with tax dollars then no one would complain that two hundred thousand people in those bosses.

The reality is right now we have a massive health risk and the government wants to deposit non-inoculated disease carriers in the middle of large populations of people who never did a thing wrong in their life to have earned dying of some mysterious kidney disease from a Nicaraguan who was never checked out. The first line of business would be to have these people checked out by the CDC and the second would be deporting them via boat back to their countries.

When Children Play With Real Guns

Capitalism, capitalism is an observation of what natural courses of action people take when attempting to gain what they want. It’s the answer to the equation that is in the question “what are you willing to give for what I have?” We are all humans, even nations are comprised of humans and as such we need other humans to progress, this is one of the things that helped us move ahead of the other forms of life on this planet socially. Understanding why and how we do things helps us to understand how to repeat those things that lead us to successes and avoid those things that only end in failures.

Capitalism’s “why” was explained after it’s observation as a method of getting what you wanted that you couldn’t otherwise get yourself from someone else through voluntary exchange, the alternative to capitalism is thus the use of force to get something you want from someone else.

Humans have a few recorded ages of changes but each share remarkable similarities, we moved out of the hunter gatherer period which where belief in the supernatural helped us define our world. We carried a similar social necessity with us into our agricultural era and it’s with us even to this day. But as those things that we had no definition for became defined the institutions that developed around the belief in the supernatural became weaker regardless of how much wealth was accumulated over the thousands of years it took for us to get here, needless to say the struggle for these institutions is to rely on areas of the world that aren’t privy to the same dictionary as the world that now has a growing apathy towards them.

Humans have a few recorded ages, and just like with the religious example nations have changed as well. Capitalism’s answer for “how” for the first time in history showed we did not need a government to have a wealthy nation. How mankind came to that conclusion was by finding the answer to the question as stated above: “what are you willing to give for what I have?” and the answer does not involve government. The formula was the Rosetta stone to the emancipation of man from king or lord. And from it rose a period called the enlightenment.

Capitalism is an observation that people would normally say trading goods was better than taking goods. As the way government had always taken goods was through war or economic subterfuge, nations were always subjected to power plays but this observation marked the first time power plays had a set formula that was mutually beneficial. The problem for nations is that they involve governments and government must have the ability to craft law. Governments recognizing their lessening strength then go about ways of crafting law to keep itself in business, after all we can’t have unemployed politicians.

A side effect of having things like Government and Religions is that ideological baggage comes hunkered with it. In the case of Islam the fundamentalist type will attempt to sway the masses or kill them and the justification for all of this is that it is gods will. This mentality of agree with me or die is something from humanities barbaric past that we have by chance and good fortune been able to avoid with our sometimes failing but best effort. Governments carry the same tone of voice but with different words, instead of justification from god it’s justification from the nation. What is the nation? Can someone speak for the nation? Does government even know what a nation is? But regardless of the answers to those questions it becomes in the national interest or national security or really anything national is where government finds warrant to act with authority. And when challenged they will always point to a greater good of the people who are too stupid or inept or nihilistic to do this good for themselves.

Having that ideological baggage mentioned above while having social and technological advances that come with being an increasingly wealthy nation means that those with the ability to apply force will find better ways to apply force by using new toys. Iran for example is one of the world’s few remaining theocracies and still carries the ideology of one religion to rule the masses, and will see it as justified to use a nuclear bomb to destroy the freedom of others to say no to their subscription plan. World Wars were ripe with examples of governments run amuck, back then governments didn’t have the machines for propaganda that they do now and yet each Dictator and President or Prime Minister was able to convince each nation to go to war for some of the dumbest reasons.

The situation got so bad that there was actually justification for using a nuclear bomb in the second war. Heck so bad that firebombing to death double the number of people that died in the nuclear bomb didn’t even seem like too bad a thing. That’s how ugly the other sides got and let’s not forget that. Today we have government and religion with toys of the 21^st century and ideologies of the 1^st century about conquest.  The impatience of man to see success is a proven path for the suffering of every warm body used to pave it and when it comes to government most of those bodies are cold.

Russia and China are both making power plays using the ideologies that government is supposed to use. And the world will soon realize that the ones who were doing this government thing only partially right was the US, the US as Churchill observed “will always do the right thing only after exhausting all the alternatives.” The alternatives were exhausted from 1873 to today and the right thing to do is now ahead of us or we can continue to skirt around the issue of fascism with alternatives. And if we do continue China and Russia will continue to do things the right way and it will ultimately lead to war.

China has been sabotaging the American economy for the last twenty five years by pandering to the greed of politicians and corporations and is now bold enough to subjugate its neighbors and claim their land as part of China. Russia no longer sees NATO as a threat, it would be one thing if they saw America as a sleeping giant but what they do now see is a rotting infested corpse courteously provided by China that needs to be disposed of with nostril pinched closed. If at this point this isn’t what it will take for the American government to wake up and stop treating the American people as the enemies  or hindrance and start treating us like not just allies but as the boss then historically that-that spells doom for politicians and the nation alike..

The Coward's (dis)Honesty

One person swears he’s told the truth but not holding long his audience exhales, one person swears he’ll right all wrongs and simplify the world and the insane man thinks he’s sane. Ambitious or prideful, when it all goes wrong a coward will have a truth to explain. Doing what hurts least is really the only good that can be done.

Some take on the challenge of justifying the conscience of the means by marking the nobility of the ends. And even then some see a noble thing covered in its corrosive corruption as something to disdain. Some see this clearly as a fall from grace; others see it as a man’s burden; the consequence of true love.

A few years ago an ambassador was slain along with three other people who charged themselves with defending the indefensible, they were all Americans and are the ones that went into harm to save lives and died protecting the diplomatic mission and are heroes for it. They saved the lives of at least thirty people who now have a gag order placed on them by a government that by issuing a stand down order had for all intents and purposes previously left them for dead.

This web isn’t quite entangled yet, for all its intricacy the simple answer is that the poison in this case is sweeter than the fruit. The ambassador was placed there most likely on a cover up mission to reclaim weapons traded originally to the Libyans for the purposes of ousting Ghadafi; part of the leading from behind policy employed months before. That and that it was an under guarded American consulate gives motive for the consulates destruction to be of value to a terror cell.  The American government at the point of the altercation could have made history but opted not to and instead allowed for the continued victimization of America and Americans by issuing a stand down order.

In the interest of fairness no one can confirm or deny the source of the stand down order only that one had been given to not scramble (a) fighter jet(s). In fact the only order was the launching of a scout drone to give the viewer a good perspective on what they thought were thirty four Americans being bombarded and killed.  There are only three places the order could have come from though; AFRICOM General Carter Ham, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the President. If there was already a negotiation not to use force then only the Secretary of Defense and the President have the ability to still issue the go order. Putting all that complication aside we must remember that the parties noted above had seven and a half hours to put this information together before the first Americans died from a mortar strike.

General Ham isn’t exactly the silent type either; he expressed his opinion about the impact America was having on the Libyan effort to penalize (remove) Ghadaffi. Leading from behind was an overt-covert operation and it is my belief that Stevens was in Benghazi to try to cover up the American foot print, I feel it’s worth noting that it is fairly important politically that no one can say America was giving guns to al-Qaeda. As such Ham made it explicitly clear the US was not giving the rebels weapons… at least not directly. What we actually did was sell the weapons to the Saudis who in turn sold it to the Libyans.   

The cover up of the cover up of the cover up shows how distrustful the American government is of its own constituency as the motivation behind every action during September 11, 2012 was handled militarily incompetently but with political deft.

The solution to all this mayhem would be smaller government. I am in support of having the biggest gun at any shoot out but a leaner more efficient gun doesn’t have to be a big gun, after all we don’t run around with musket rifles anymore do we? Smaller government lends itself to a more cost effective government and the decision making process that led to the selling of weapons at dirt cheap prices to have them eventually end up in our apparently no so close friends hands may not have been as appealing without the near unlimited funds to back it.

There are from my perspective several candidates for surreptitious behavior in this debacle but jail time could only be issued to a few. And possibly even a resignation from office or impeachment could be in order. The way I see it, this is the first time Americans have seen in front of them while the responsible parties are still in office a clandestine, illegal, morally bankrupt, and undignified effort be as exposed as it is, and Americans have the opportunity to react to punish such corrupt, indignant and negligent behavior by those who not only ignored their duties but believed themselves untouchable for it.

American Political Musical Chairs Part 1

Good day reader, did you know that the framers of America’s constitution were Anarchists? Well good deals of them were; you see America was divided amongst two schools of thought. One was the statist who believed that a strong central government was a strong country; these guys were called Federalists or Whig since they were for a Federal government that stood above the States. The other side was the agrarians and individual liberty guys, these guys believed that in order to ensure individual liberties the individual must be represented to the utmost and this means all laws would be handled by the States, these guys were called either Jeffersonians, and to a degree Madisonians and belonged to the Democratic-Republican Party.

In politics there was always a lot of musical chairs, and reader you must understand that in most cases people who we understand today as bad guys may not have viewed themselves or their acts as evil. For example, the KKK is understood to be one of the most evil entities to exist in US history had members that believed their calling to murder people who did nothing to them was noble.

Eventually the party of Jefferson won and then again with the Madisonians, this pattern continued up until John Quincy Adams who was the first President to severely depart from typical free market strategy and pushed for a banking policy in line with Hamiltonian principles. Right after though Andrew Jackson was elected under the Democratic Party and at this point you were either Andrews’s boy or Adams’s boy and this is where it gets complicated. While both Andrew Jackson and John Q. Adams were from the same overarching school of thought in the Democratic-Republican party, they disagreed on banks, business and government involvement in both. The information of the economic situation during Jacksons time seems to carry the propaganda set by the pro Adams left wing. During this time there was a flip, Federalists were considered conservatives since they followed the old ways of having a monarchy or something close to it. However after being underrepresented in politics for 5 presidents and almost 40 years their tone changed and they pushed instead of for bigger monarchical government for bigger democratic government. 

Okay so let’s take a small breather, I’ll take this moment to clear my throat also: Reader I am not establishing who had the superior ideals here, nor who was good or who was evil. I am explaining to the best of my ability how political ideologies shifted around over the years and in my last paragraph I’ll explain where we stand today because of these shifts and how while the people of those times have died, the ideologies continue with very similar messages.

The term “Nanny State” accurately identifies the Progressive ideology of how government should operate.    But Progressivism had a different name before Teddy Roosevelt, it was also married to another idea called mistakenly referred to as White Supremacy.  Most hear “white” and think Anglo but in reality the ideology of racial superiority the Southerners practiced came from their French background. By this point in history England had decided to end the Transatlantic Slave Trade and positioned Navy and Privateers to harass and arrest those who conducted slave trading to the Americas and Caribbean.  Americans were also weary of a growing Black Slave population and feared a repeat of the Haitian slave revolts but in America. It could be said that fear may have fueled the sense of superiority slave owners felt; it could have been their version of denial. In the end after little over 60 years of slavery there was a war that would ultimately end the institution.

Now reader pay close attention here because this part becomes very confusing, even though I do not recognize the civil war as a war to end slavery many people do and so I’ll take a moment to explain how ideologies got entangled in this pre-civil war game of congressional musical chairs.

Jeffersonians held on to the idea of small but effective government, Hamiltonians held on to the idea of central banking, Madisonians held on to the idea of individual liberties like Jefferson but there was a little more to the ideology, it would be the one that wins the argument after the civil war and would forever change how we look at government, it would reach its apex during rein of Franklin D. Roosevelt.  This was the idea of bicameralism, it was a notion that aristocracy not only does exist but that it should exist in government.  In modern tongue Bicameralism is the belief that the old money or basically the wealthy should be represented separately from everyone else and as with every idea good or bad, there is reasoning behind it. The founders were afraid that the House would become to “fickle” and “impassioned” and so devised the Senate to keep a check on them, the Senate would be the wealthy folks deemed sensible as a verdict of their possession.

Now it’s very important to understand that these identifiers worked before the civil war, after the civil war the political paradigm shifted a lot and it was mainly due to the contagious government structure that England used called bicameralism. In the propaganda spin on things; Monarchy unwilling to give way to the silent ideological revolution called bicameralism established a  ideology called Cameralism. Today we understand Cameralism to mean Nationalism or economically Socialism but there is a difference. Cameralism is the belief that one’s government is one. In turn the government acts on behalf of the people because it is the people.  The Prussian people believed this wholeheartedly and what comes from that is ultimately the rise of nationalism and then when you add the Catholic Church’s far right wing as part of the national identity you have fascism.   

In the US though Cameralism took a different tone as it spread through Europe, Jefferson always had a fondness for Europe but only so far as Empire was concerned and beyond that he had no envy for European political structure or society but Nationalism in a post Jefferson Pre-Civil war era only seemed natural as Social Darwinism made its impact on the norms of society.

Okay, reader now that you have all of that back ground we can continue with how the different ideologies got entangled before the civil war. Before that it’s important to note that from this point on the left wing of America is the Right wing of the rest of the world and the right wing of America is an unrepresented party for the most part and there is a reason for this. There are only a few exceptions to that rule for example in England the Torri party are essentially right wingers and would find a lot more in common with Republicans in America than Democrats.

The founders that were Jeffersonians believed that slavery was a negative of their time, but most like Jefferson except a notable few like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine didn’t want to make a federal mandate abolishing the practice since it went against their idea of small government and also could cause a civil war. Jefferson personally up until his later years did not care for blacks in general and wanted them out of the US so that if they were to be slaves they would be slaves to their own kind, it would be later on in his life that he showed and understanding that blacks are as much men as a Europeans. Even so many early Jeffersonians like James Monroe took steps to get each state to abolish slavery. Part of the reason the North became so industrialized by the civil war was as a result of all the inventions Benjamin Franklin had came up with and the innovations there after.

Industrialization however came with its positives and negatives but for the purpose of the civil war the positive was the need for more consumers. Slaves cannot be consumers and so slavery was abolished thanks to that basic principle of Capitalism that says wealth can be created from nothing more than the imagination.  The downside was that industrialization shifted values from soft to hard land as people found more wealth working in factories than on farms. This caused an increase in the size of cities and thus demands for sound money and a central bank. I won’t go into banking in detail here or the green back movement; I just don’t have the space.

The south had adopted some of the innovations themselves but slavery was about another twenty years from ending in southern states as well without war. Economically the states that had abolished slavery were progressing at rapid rates socially and technologically as they became veritable metropolises. In the South though, inventions like the Cotton gin which was meant to ease demand for slaves like it did in the North only increased demand for slaves.  Aside from the economic reasons for the coming war the moral argument of the south was that Blacks did not want to be free anyway because they couldn’t handle freedom, black slaves were indeed the white man’s burden.

A divide was made and the Democrats who controlled the Senate because of how the Senate was elected (Those who possessed the most wealth in land) were segregationists and the Republicans were for desegregation.  Typically in the Senate was always packed with segregationists and only the Republicans  pushed for desegregation or did nothing at all on that issue. The militant component started with the abolitionists which consisted mainly of religious northerners who thought of slavery as a mortal sin and one of them was John Brown.

I feel that it is mainly because of the sensationalism around the John Brown affair why people give more credit to the abolition aspect of the civil war over the economic one.

I apologize reader but this has carried on for very long and so I’ll have to do a part two at another time, but this was a fun exercise in American History.